ORDER : These petitions, arising out of one and same FIR, to be decided on the basis of common facts and circumstances, and material on record, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners, invoking Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have approached this Court for grant of bail in case FIR No.28 of 2022, dated 21.4.2022, registered under Sections 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Status Report stands filed. Record has also been made available. Earlier petitioners had approached the Special Judge (CBI), Shimla by filing Bail Application No. 22-S/22 of 2022 titled Mool Raj Chauhan vs. State of HP and Bail Application No. 24-S/22 of 2022 titled Sunil Dutt vs. State of HP 4. Prosecution case is that on finding shortage of stock and discrepancies with respect to receipt and sale of stock at Petrol Pump Deorighat, being run by HIMFED, four members Departmental Committee, under the General Manager, HIMFED, was constituted on 11.4.2022 to look into the issue. The Committee in its Report dated 18.4.2022 pointed out serious financial irregularities and embezzlement of Government funds to the tune of Rs.1,30,83,787.36 Ps. During inquiry, two employees namely Mool Raj, who was Incharge of Petrol Pump, and Sunil Dutt, who was Outsourced Clerk, deployed on the same Petrol Pump accepted their role in embezzlement and promised to repay the amount. 5. On the basis of aforesaid Report, a complaint dated 19.4.2022 was received from Incharge, HIMFED Regional Office Shimla, in Police Station Theog. On the basis of it, FIR was registered and investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector/Incharge Ram Asra. Keeping in view the sensitivity and seriousness of matter, the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh constituted a Special Investigating Team. 6. During investigation, petitioners after obtaining interim bail from Special Judge (CBI), Shimla on 23.4.2022, joined investigation, but their bail applications were dismissed on 30.4.2022. Thereafter, petitioners obtained anticipatory bail from this Court on 4.5.2022 and joined the investigation. 7. 6. During investigation, petitioners after obtaining interim bail from Special Judge (CBI), Shimla on 23.4.2022, joined investigation, but their bail applications were dismissed on 30.4.2022. Thereafter, petitioners obtained anticipatory bail from this Court on 4.5.2022 and joined the investigation. 7. During investigation, as per status report, petitioners disclosed that during the year 2018, there was deficit of Rs.2,40,000/- in the accounts of Petrol Pump and to cover-up this gap, Mool Raj had deposited Rs.1 lac but remaining amount was not deposited by anyone and to recover the aforesaid amount, Mool Raj and Sunil Dutt started to record lesser sale in the Register than actual sale but by 31st March, 2019 this deficit became Rs.5 lacs and, therefore, Mool Raj started to deposit the amount in the account of HIMFED after borrowing it from persons other than employees of HIMFED and on 31st March, 2022, in the Cash Book, deficiency became Rs.13,84,000/- whereupon, Mool Raj arranged Rs.11 lacs and deposited the same in the account of HIMFED in order to keep the account of HIMFED in order during Financial Year. Further that Mool Raj and Sunil Dutt, during 22nd March to 30th March, 2022, did not enter/record supply of seven tankers to Petrol Pump in Registers because after recording receipt of these tankers in the Register, Cash Book, account of HIMFED, on 31st March, 2022, would not have been settled. In this regard, Managing Director of HIMFED received an information on 11.4.2022 whereupon he constituted a Committee and as per Report of Committee, there was shortage of 81598 litres petrol, 47308 litres diesel, 13500 lubricants on Petrol Pump with underground shortage of 4246 litres petrol, 2124 litres diesel, which was worth Rs.1,30,83,787.36 Ps. 8. As per status report, it has come in investigation that according to appointment orders, Vipin Mista, Sita Ram and Suresh Kumar were appointed as Clerks, Storekeeper and Peon respectively but Mool Raj, at his own level, had ordered specially that Sunil Dutt shall maintain the office record, bank record and bills and daily sales summary as well as depositing of cash in bank. During investigation, entries in Cash Book of Petrol Pump, daily sale record and stock registers have also been found incorrect. During investigation, entries in Cash Book of Petrol Pump, daily sale record and stock registers have also been found incorrect. As per prosecution case, Mool Raj and Sunil Dutt were showing lesser sale in Petrol Pump since 2018 and used to deposit lesser amount of sale in Bank by embezzling the amount and after sometime, they used to manage/settle the details of sale in record. As per status report, Investigating Agency is perusing remaining record of the years 2018 to 2022 pertaining to Petrol Pump in question. 9. As per status report, Devinder Thakur, who remained Accountant in HIMFED Area Office since 2018, has been associated during investigation but during interrogation, he is not disclosing anything. Further that Anil Kashyap, appointed in HIMFED Area Office since 2018 has also been asked to join the investigation by informing him. It has been stated in status report that petitioners are levelling allegations upon each other and in absence of custody, Investigating Officer is not able to carry out intensive investigation and therefore, request for custodial interrogation has been made. 10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were not only employees deputed on Petrol Pump but other employees were also serving on Petrol Pump and further that as per prescribed procedure, everyday sale was to be reported to Area Manager and was to be entered in record by concerned Accountant and, therefore, it was not possible for petitioners to involve in commission of offence as alleged, and in case any discrepancy or shortfall in stock or amount deposited in Bank of HIMFED is there, then Accountant as well as Area Manager were and are responsible for maintaining the record on day-to-day basis and they should be main accused persons, but petitioners are being made scapegoat. 11. It has also been submitted by Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate, that though it is claimed by complainant and Investigating Agency that embezzlement was going on since 2018 but balance sheet of years 2018-19 does not reflect any such shortfall but depicts that everything was in order at that time. 12. It has been further contended by Mr. 11. It has also been submitted by Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate, that though it is claimed by complainant and Investigating Agency that embezzlement was going on since 2018 but balance sheet of years 2018-19 does not reflect any such shortfall but depicts that everything was in order at that time. 12. It has been further contended by Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate, that though some amount against the payment of sale has been received in the account of Sunil Dutt, but such amount was received by him for the reason that HIMFED had not provided QR Code for receiving the payments through Google Pay whereas some customers used to make payments through Google Pay and to facilitate them, petitioner Sunil Dutt used to receive the amount in his account through Google Pay and thereafter deposit/transfer the same in Bank Account of HIMFED. 13. Mr. K.S. Thakur, Advocate, in addition, has submitted that since last two months, petitioners are joining the investigation and fully cooperating the Investigating Agency and there is no activity to tamper of evidence on their part and investigation is almost complete and therefore, there is no ground for seeking custodial interrogation of petitioners. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions, of Investigating Officer submits that other persons posted in concerned Petrol Pump as well as Area Office of HIMFED are being associated and interrogated in investigation and in case of finding commission of offence on their part, they shall also be arrayed as accused in present case. 15. This Court in Freed and other connected matters v. State, reported in 2020 (4) Shim. LC 1614, and Mangal Singh Negi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021 (2) Shim. LC 860 : 2021 (2) Him L.R. (HC) 917, has discussed the law related consideration of bail applications under Section 438 Cr.PC viz-a-viz a right of Investigating Agency to have custody of an accused. 16. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , the Supreme Court has observed as under: “Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. 70. On behalf of the appellant, much arguments were advanced contending that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that unless custodial interrogation is warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the right conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. "....except according to a procedure prescribed by law." In State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 , the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as under: (SCC p.226, para 7) "7. ........We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. ........We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed: ‘We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised.’ In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21." (emphasis supplied) 72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 73. The learned Solicitor General has submitted that depending upon the facts of each case, it is for the investigating agency to confront the accused with the material, only when the accused is in custody. It was submitted that the statutory right under Section 19 of PMLA has an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power of arrest by the investigating officer. It was submitted that the statutory right under Section 19 of PMLA has an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power of arrest by the investigating officer. Submitting that custodial interrogation is a recognised mode of interrogation which is not only permissible but has been held to be more effective, the learned Solicitor General placed reliance upon State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 ; Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 1 SCC 146 ; and Directorate of Enforcement v. Hassan Ali Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 684 . 74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 75. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 , it was held as under: (SCC p.313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code." 76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 .)"” Economic offences 78. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 79. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the "Scheduled offence" and "offence of money laundering" are independent of each other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of money laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. 80. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary. 80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , it was held as under:- "5. .....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest......" 81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , the Supreme Court held as under:- "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 , in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others, (1999) 5 SCC 720 , while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent- Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 17. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1985) 2 SCC 597 , the Supreme Court had observed that relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncements and material placed before me and also submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a case where ex-facie no case is made out at all against the petitioners. For conduct of the petitioners, as has come in the report of Committee, as well as reported by the Investigating Agency, it cannot be said to be totally false case and, therefore, in present case accusation cannot be said to have been made with object to injuring or humiliating the petitioners by having them so arrested without any cause. Investigation in present case is at initial stage. 19. Investigation in present case is at initial stage. 19. Without commenting upon the merits of the rival contentions, but taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of case, stage of investigation, and the factors and parameters to be considered at the time of adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail, as propounded by the Courts, including the Supreme Court, balancing the personal interest vis-à-vis public interest, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 20. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the bail petitions are dismissed and disposed of. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website before the authorities concerned and the said authorities shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, passing of order may be verified from the High Court website or otherwise.